Laserfiche WebLink
July 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin <br />ing removal of the mobile home. The Komondys did not remove the mobile <br />home, nor did they begin any reconstruction of a permanent home on their <br />property. Eventually, the Town sued, and received a court judgment allowing <br />Town removal of the mobile home. In February 2012, the Town notified Mrs. <br />Komondy that the Town would be removing the mobile home at her expense, <br />it it was not removed by her. <br />Mrs. Komondy then sued the Town. While the lawsuit was pending, Mrs. <br />Komondy died, and her husband, Christopher (hereinafter "Komondy") was <br />substituted as the plaintiff in the action. Among other things, Komondy <br />brought a "class of one" equal protection claim. He alleged that his right to <br />"equal protection" as a "class of one" was violated by the Town's enforcement <br />of its zoning regulations against him. <br />The United States Supreme. Court has recognized the existence of a "class <br />of one" equal protection cause of action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against <br />a municipality for arbitrary or irrational application of property laws. "Suc- <br />cessful equal protection claims [may be] brought by a `class of one,' where the <br />plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others <br />similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in <br />treatment." <br />Here, Komondy alleged that other, similarly situated property owners of <br />residential land in the Town were permitted to maintain mobile homes on the <br />land for "many years," and that the Town's unequal treatment of Komondy <br />"deprived [him] .of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth <br />Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections <br />1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code." <br />The Town filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that there was <br />no genuine dispute of material fact, and asking the court to find the Town <br />entitled to summary judgment on the class of one equal protection claim as a <br />matter of law. <br />DECISION: Town's Motion for Summary Judgment granted. <br />The United States District Court, District of Connecticut, held that <br />Komondy's class of one equal protection claim failed as a matter of law <br />because: Komondy failed to show that he was treated differently than any <br />similarly situated individual; and the Town had a rational basis for denying <br />Komondy's application for a permit extension or variance. <br />Komondy had pointed to three property owners that he alleged were <br />"similarly situated" comparators who had mobile homes on their properties <br />for longer periods than the Komondys. The court, however, found that none of <br />the alleged comparators were similarly situated to Komondy. Two of the prop- <br />erties had mobile homes on them before the Town zoning regulations were <br />instituted, and so the mobile homes were grandfathered and did not need to <br />conform to the zoning regulations. Additionally, each of those mobile homes <br />later became a permanent structure after permitted additions were added to <br />them. Komondy's mobile home was not grandfathered and was never <br />converted into a permanent structure. The third property that Komondy cited <br />as a comparator was issued a Cease & Desist Order similar to Komondy for <br />the mobile home. However, unlike Komondy, the owners of that property ap- <br />10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />